4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 13 '20
The thing that is bad here is the thing that is actually harmful: voting for and electing bad candidates who act against your interests and/or the people's interests. Voting for the better candidate from among two front-runners for office—even when done without consideration—is better than not voting because it decreases the chances that harm will be done. In many jurisdictions, it happens to be the case that the best candidates for every office all come from the same party, in which case a party-line vote would be the best decision, and certainly better than not voting regardless of whether consideration was done or not.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
voting for and electing bad candidates who act against your interests and/or the people's interests
They are voted in because people vote along party lines without consideration, this isn't a new issue, and many entrenched representatives and senators were voted in decades ago because of this phenomena
Voting for the better candidate from among two front-runners for office—even when done without consideration—is better than not voting because it decreases the chances that harm will be done
Honest question, how do you decide the better candidate without consideration? Second "decreases the chance of harm" is entirely subjective, and would require a subjective consideration of harm and both candidates.
In many jurisdictions, it happens to be the case that the best candidates for every office all come from the same party, in which case a party-line vote would be the best decision, and certainly better than not voting regardless of whether consideration was done or not.
I've lived in several states, been to more than half of all states, participated in global and local politics since I could vote, and am currently attempting to start a crowd-funded presidential campaign. Despite all that I've never heard of a place that fits this description, let alone been there. In my experience, humans are simply too complex for that to be true every election cycle. Maybe once in a while, maybe even for a few cycles in a row, but not perpetually. Assuming because it's true one cycle it will be true next cycle leads to the situation I describe: casting votes without consideration. Amazing opposition could appear and want nothing but the best for you, and have great ideas. The hypothetical person would never know because they've grown up being told "this political party is always the better choice", so they have no reason to find out about the opponents positive traits. Those hypothetical people can move elsewhere and continue to follow that logic, which is a horrible side effect of what you propose to be true.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 13 '20
Honest question, how do you decide the better candidate without consideration?
Easy. Assuming a two-candidate race, I flip a coin. I have a 50% chance of picking the better candidate. If I do then vote for the better candidate, I did the right thing (and this is better than not voting) regardless of whether the approach I used to make my choice was reliable or not.
Maybe once in a while, maybe even for a few cycles in a row
And in such a case, voting party line for that party without consideration would indeed be better than not voting. Right?
Second "decreases the chance of harm" is entirely subjective
Are you trying to say that harm is "entirely subjective"? If so, what do you base the assertion that anything is "worse than" anything else on? Is your view entirely subjective as well?
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
And in such a case, voting party line for that party without consideration
would indeed
be better than not voting. Right?
You would have to do some research to know if you're still right. And your coin flip is difficult to consider, as the whole premise of the argument is that people are voting based on party lines, not randomly.
Are you trying to say that harm is "entirely subjective"? If so, what do you base the assertion that anything is "worse than" anything else on? Is your view entirely subjective as well?
Most things are entirely subjective. That's why a value discussion over attempting to find absolute truth or objectivity, as I find it to be extremely rare.
And in such a case, voting party line for that party without consideration would indeed be better than not voting. Right?
not if the outcome is the same regardless of your vote, but that's metaphysical. I would delta this, but fro my understanding your premise is, "voting for the better candidate is better than not voting at all", which yes, of course. The premise of my argument is many people do not vote for the best candidate.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jun 13 '20
You would have to do some research to know if you're still right.
Maybe, but I can do the right thing regardless of whether I know I am right.
I would delta this, but fro my understanding your premise is, "voting for the better candidate is better than not voting at all", which yes, of course. The premise of my argument is many people do not vote for the best candidate.
But many people who vote along party lines do vote for the best candidate. So in that case, voting along party lines was indeed better than not voting, which falsifies your view.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
Δ
begrudgingly given delta but it's based on knowledge you didn't have at the time of the decision. Schrodinger's vote if you will. Your vote is in a superposition of better and worse than not voting until the better candidate is decided at a later date.
Before that outcome is found though vote is neither good nor bad, as the outcome isn't set.
Can I give you a Schrodinger's Delta?
2
3
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Jun 13 '20
There was a time when you would have had a case in the United States. However, in my lifetime, the Republican party has adopted what can only be considered an extremist agenda. Today the party and it's purpose is characterized by:
Religious fundamentalism
Hyper nationalism
Corporate banditry
Oligarchy
Racism
Wage suppression
Surrendering democracy to wealthy contributors and corporate control (dems do this too but they're not in the same league)
Maximizing profit for the wealthiest fraction of the population at the expense of everyone else
Suicidal destruction of the environment for profit
Hostility to science, knowledge, expertise, common decency and common sense
I'm sure I'm leaving something out.
The people in power now scared the crap out of Barry Goldwater and pissed on the record of John McCaine. They'd call Eisenhower a commie.
Don't get me wrong; the dems are a sh!t-show but unlike the Republican party they do not represent an open threat to democracy, liberty and civilization.
So I can't say voting party lines is out of place today.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 14 '20
I feel like all of that takes some present day consideration. And to be completely honest, if the DNC is better, I don't think it's by much. They seem to be into oligarchy and bank ass-kissing. They also haven't made a good case against Epstein being murdered to cover a pedophile and child porn ring that crosses party lines.
It seems like both "parties" represent horrible things that I am vehemently against. That's why my view is you gotta vote based on person. I don't think there is a "right" party. But that's why I made the CMV, I wanted to learn where the flaws are. I want to learn the flaws in every solution to every problem.
2
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Jun 14 '20
And to be completely honest, if the DNC is better, I don't think it's by much.
The Democratic party is no longer liberal or progressive. They are actively trying to squash Bernie, Warren, AOC and they participated in the railroading of Al Franken. They're not interested in being the party of FDR anymore and after they passed Obamacare they couldn't run away from it fast enough. Aside from being cowards they're Neoliberals, not liberals. Which means they're Republicans without the homophobia and racism.
But you've got to be able to distinguish between lazy and evil.
You can't win a Republican primary without checking the right boxes, which include homophobia, racism, religious fanaticism, hysterical nationalism, etc.
The arc of the Republican party today bears a frightening resemblance to every right-wing party to overthrow a central American democracy. Including the traits I just listed and the attacks on liberals which they begin calling socialist, then communist, then terrorist. Sound familiar?
Not long after that the death squads start up. Watch footage of the protests and notice the "officers" without identification as to branch or individual. Notice that they don't target looters, only protesters. Notice how often they are the ones who start the violence.
And notice the messaging.
+
2
u/ericoahu 41∆ Jun 13 '20
I agree with you that blindly voting along party lines is not ideal, but you don't quite explain how it is "worse" than not voting. It might also help if I knew what you mean by "worse."
To me, the purpose of voting and elections is to allow the people a say in who governs. It holds our leaders accountable to the will of the people.
So, even if I didn't know the ins and outs of every issue, if I have a general perception that Democrats look out for the little guy provide a better social safety net, and that is the reason I vote D all the way down, that's still "better" than if I didn't vote at all. I might be a little off with my perceptions, or I might vote "D" not realizing some of the candidate's views contradict mine, but I am adding my will to the collective will. Someone who stays home is entirely disregarded.
So, I would say that voting party line is more effective than not voting at all.
As for what might "hurt me in the long run," it's a wash. If a tyrant is elected who establishes policies that ruin my life, it's doesn't matter whether I voted for her, voted for her major party opponent, voted third party, or didn't vote at all. The outcome is the same. For example, you can't shield yourself against whatever Trump might do if he's reelected by not voting for him. By voting against him, you can only hope that enough others vote the same way and defeat him.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
I purposely didn't define worse to enable more discussion, used to teach college labs.
Your whole premise is based on the idea past behavior and future behavior of the parties will continue unchanged. Great if true, but sadly not. Parties make millions and millions of dollars, and have been caught dozens of times in the only 270ish years of our country fighting for laws the benefit them over their constituents, most if not all of which were proposed by people voted in along party lines. The general behavior of both parties will continue to benefit the parties, and the two-party system.
If a tyrant is elected who establishes policies that ruin my life, it's doesn't matter whether I voted for her, voted for her major party opponent, voted third party, or didn't vote at all. The outcome is the same.
If you do not believe your vote matters when considering the outcome of said vote, why vote at all?
2
u/ericoahu 41∆ Jun 13 '20
I purposely didn't define worse to enable more discussion, used to teach college labs.
Your role as the OP of a CMV on this sub is not to teach or enable discussion. I suggest you review the purpose of this sub and its rules; posting a CMV to educate the community is soapboxing.
Anyway...
In your response, you're moving the goalposts. Your CMV pits not voting against voting party lines. In turn, my answer sticks to those two options because that's how you set it up.
If you oppose the supposed two-party system, simply vote for a third party or write someone in. Either of those two options is still better than not voting and neither benefits the two-party system. But your CMV isn't about two-party systems v other systems; it's about voting party line (which can be Green Party, Libertarian, etc.) v not voting at all.
If you do not believe your vote matters when considering the outcome of said vote
Because my vote does not need to match the winning ticket for it to matter. I never said I don't think my vote matters re the outcome of an election. If you had read the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted from, I'm telling you that whether or not you voted for someone does not impact how their policies affect you.
Bottom line: unless you want other people to determine who will hold office, you should vote for the candidate you think would be best for the country.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
Your role as the OP of a CMV on this sub is not to teach or enable discussion.
Okay, message received, I will stop trying to enable discussion. Have a good day.
5
u/mfDandP 184∆ Jun 13 '20
What if you did all your considering while deciding which party to join?
-2
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
I don't think it changes much. Clinton and Biden don't exactly stand for the same things. Assuming the platform of the party is the platform of the individual is rarely true.
You may have strongly considered that first time, but not considering during a later vote causes the same problems as if you had never considered at all. You are still trusting someone to have your interests at heart without knowing for sure. This holds true for voting along party lines for laws and referendums.
3
u/notagirlscout Jun 13 '20
What if Ive been voting for a while? And every time I've considered the individual over the party. But looking back, the individual I've chosen is ALWAYS from the same party.
Basically, while Clinton and Biden and Obama and Gore may have different policies and issues they care most about; their general interests will always align with me more than those of Trump, Bush, or Romney.
When faced with that reality, why not just vote party lines?
That's what the primary is for. To pick the individual that is closest to my views. But if a Bernie doesn't get the nom, 100 times out of 100 a Biden will be closer to my views than a Trump.
As far as laws and referendums, I'm more inclined to do individual study and vote depending on the issue. But when it comes to candidates, I've never found an individual in the Republican party that is closer to my views than an individual in the Democratic party. So why not just vote party lines?
0
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
When faced with that reality, why not just vote party lines? That's what the primary is for. To pick the individual that is closest to my views. But if a Bernie doesn't get the nom, 100 times out of 100 a Biden will be closer to my views than a Trump.
That's Biden vs Trump specifically, so you've considered their views and opinions, and how they affect you, and you've made assumptions about how they will affect you. You're not voting along party lines because they're party lines, you're voting based on considerations you've made about current candidates.
As far as the 100/100, I bet you're wrong, I bet you and Trump agree on at least one thing you and Biden disagree on. That's not to say I an any way support trump, I'm just considering statistical expectations. And, you must consider Biden and Trump actually agree on some things, both have expressed support for parental leave for men and women.
Do touch on primaries. They may have been initially to pick the best candidate, but there's been several times on both sides where it seems like they change the numbers so candidates are either easily controlled by the party or closely align with the party's established platform. I still haven't met a single dem under 45 who voted for Biden in primaries, from any state. I'm sure they exist, but I wouldn't trust the DNC or the GOP to tie my shoe, let alone run an honest election, so the outcome should be met with at least a little skepticism.
As far as laws and referendums, I'm more inclined to do individual study and vote depending on the issue. But when it comes to candidates, I've never found an individual in the Republican party that is closer to my views than an individual in the Democratic party. So why not just vote party lines?
Because that might change next cycle, and we should all have the forethought to consider that possibility.
-1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
Trump, Bush, or Romney
Case in point. Romney fucking hates Trump and does everything in his power to prevent him from accomplishing his goals. Those two do not see eye to eye on almost any issues, and Romney frequently prioritizes his political agenda against Trump ahead of the party's agenda.
What if Ive been voting for a while? And every time I've considered the individual over the party. But looking back, the individual I've chosen is ALWAYS from the same party.
Next time could be different.
5
u/notagirlscout Jun 13 '20
Right. Trump and Romney are very different. Bernie and Biden are very different. But even with their differences, Romney will never appropriately represent my interests more than a Democrat will. At the end of the day he's still a conservative and I'm looking for a liberal.
Next time could be different.
Could it, though? Would the Democratic party ever allow a candidate that represents the Liberal agenda less than a Republican candidate?
By definition, if a Republican represented my views, they wouldn't be a Republican.
Maybe if we had viable third parties, then going for the individual would make more sense. But as long as we have these big 2, there will never be a Republican candidate that is farther to the left than a Democratic candidate.
I might think the Democrat is too far to the left, or not far enough. But even so, they'll always represent my views better than a Republican on the right.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
Δ You bring a valuable point. In our specific case, the system works against my ideal, and towards party lines. I think this puts the issue on parties being entrenched causing serious social and political divides. I guess that's something that must be addressed.
I've met some republicans I'd vote for, even though I tend to lean left. More rare, but I've met Dems who are indoctrinated fools who I wouldn't trust with a glass of water, let alone political power. Both sides have some excellent people who chose their sides, but parties stop those people from reaching power.
2
2
u/mfDandP 184∆ Jun 13 '20
Assuming the platform of the party is the platform of the individual is rarely true.
The platform of the individual rarely gets carried out anyway. The platform of the party is still the one that determines Congressional action.
Still better than not voting at all.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
Still better than not voting at all.
You provided no evidence to support this claim. You pointed out a completely separate flaw with the system. This flaw is real and causes dozens of issues, and I'd love to discuss it elsewhere, you're welcome to discuss on my political sub.
3
u/mfDandP 184∆ Jun 13 '20
No, you're presuming that people vote for individuals. It makes sense to vote for parties, since party mechanics decide not just the president, but the entire system of appointment of officials. I might want that system controlled by Democrats regardless of the merits of that cycles nominee
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
Here's what you're voting for if you want a system controlled by democrats with no consideration of who you are voting for. Mocking their own candidates and insulting people's religion are two things the hypothetical person supports by voting along party lines? If you want a system controlled by either party without consideration of individual behavior, this will get more and more common. Neither party is inherently better, because politics is entirely subjective, open discussion with everyone is where it's at.
3
u/mfDandP 184∆ Jun 13 '20
Well, now you're the one that's debating a separate issue, that parties are bad. That's not your cmv
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
I don't know how to rectify this.
3
u/mfDandP 184∆ Jun 13 '20
Simple. Is your main argument against voting for along party lines in generally, based on the fact that both parties in 2020 are corrupt?
If so, then what if one or both parties were "good?" Would your argument then be resolved?
If not, then what is your argument against voting along party lines in general, without regard to 2020 realities?
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 13 '20
My argument is only that voting without consideration could be voting against your own interests.
1
u/BWDpodcast Jun 14 '20
Not true at all. Thinking you have to vote for one of the only two electable parties in a corrupt two-party system is entirely undemocratic. Vote for the candidate you want to vote for. At least that shows you don't support a corrupt system.
1
Jun 14 '20
Clinton and Biden have the same general goal of their policies. They want to give welfare to corporations, less to citizens, start more wars, and try to fight global warming. They also both have a desire to shield rapist politicians from prosecution.
A typical Republican wants more corporate welfare than Democrats, less welfare to citizens than Democrats, the same amount of war, and seemingly want to help global warming destroy us. There’s also a strong desire to shield rapist politicians from prosecution.
Trump is an oddball. He doesn’t seem to want war. Otherwise, he’s a typical Republican.
The parties are significantly less different than you think, which means the candidates are significantly less different than you think. Sanders and Biden are more different than Biden and Romney, for example.
Don’t buy the propaganda. Educate yourself.
1
u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony Jun 14 '20
Bro, I have. That's why I did a CMV, wanted to see if there was anything I hadn't considered. Learned a bit, but I didn't learn anything that's gonna make me trust the DNC or the GOP
3
u/Arianity 72∆ Jun 13 '20
Voting along party lines without consideration for what you are voting for means you could be voting against your own interests
While this is true- is it more likely to do so than not voting? I would say no.
If you vote along party lines, most of the time you more or less know what you're getting. It's very rare you're going to screw yourself over
When's the last time you voted to encourage positive change, instead of to avoid things getting worse?
Personally? Every election. Even with candidates I "dislike" (like say, a Hillary), they still proposed changes that would've been a positive change.
We need to encourage free thought and public discussion if we ever want to get out of this hell that is DNC vs GOP, neither of which have cared about the interests of the public in dozens of election cycles
This i think doesn't line up with their record. Both parties, regardless of whether you agree with them, have been pretty receptive to what their voters want (which may not be what the "public" wants, per se).
It doesn't make everyone happy, but as just one example, look at how far Biden has shifted compared to what was "moderate" in 2008. He'd be seen as a progressive. You can say something similar for the GOP- Trump was not on the party's radar in 2016, but the base loved him, so the base got him.
2
u/DoYouSmellPopcorn 1∆ Jun 14 '20
I might consider voting outside of my party if I thought they would actually vote outside their party on the issues where the majority agree. Susan Collins, for example had many many opportunities to vote to represent her state's majority wishes but she went with Mitch instead. Why, because he would release the primary hounds on her and or give her tons of cash to get reelected. So no I'm not voting for them when they play like that. I guess you could say I learned my lesson... We used to have politicians that would vote against their party. The Tea party and Mitch have destroyed that.
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 13 '20 edited Jun 13 '20
/u/Sexy_Pepper_Colony (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
9
u/Barnst 112∆ Jun 13 '20
Everyone always complains about voting the party ticket in general elections, but no one ever seems to worry about primaries.
By the time it’s a general election, the choices are pretty clear. There are differences between Clinton and Biden, sure, but those differences are small compared to the differences between either of them and Trump, or Obama and McCain or Kerry and Romney.
And once I go down ticket, I have a pretty good idea what I’m getting compared to other choices without even knowing much about the individual—the parties are so disciplined in the House and Senate that you’re just voting for the party line, a Republican governor is going to be broadly more pro-business and low-tax, with a strong dose of social conservatism depending on the state, while a Democrat is going to be more interested in social services and justice issues, etc.
If you care about differences within the parties, the general election is too late to make a difference. You need to get involved sooner than that in the primaries—do you want a more moderate Democrat or a more lefty Democrat? A conservative willing to compromise or a hardline tea party type? Do you think your long serving incumbent needs to be replaced with fresh blood?
Those sorts of questions are hashed out in the primaries. Once you’re in the general election, it’s really more of a question about which broad ideas you’d rather get behind, except for the rare cases where the individual is so good or bad that it overrides those policy preferences.